Literature DB >> 14697374

Minimal preparation computed tomography instead of barium enema/colonoscopy for suspected colon cancer in frail elderly patients: an outcome analysis study.

S M Kealey1, J D Dodd, P M MacEneaney, R G Gibney, D E Malone.   

Abstract

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of minimal preparation computed tomography (MPCT) in diagnosing clinically significant colonic tumours in frail, elderly patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study was performed in a group of consecutively referred, frail, elderly patients with symptoms or signs of anaemia, pain, rectal bleeding or weight loss. The MPCT protocol consisted of 1.5 l Gastrografin 1% diluted with sterile water administered during the 48 h before the procedure with no bowel preparation or administration of intravenous contrast medium. Eight millimetre contiguous scans through the abdomen and pelvis were performed. The scans were double-reported by two gastrointestinal radiologists as showing definite (>90% certain), probable (50-90% certain), possible (<50% certain) neoplasm or normal. Where observers disagreed the more pessimistic of the two reports was accepted. The gold standard was clinical outcome at 1 year with positive end-points defined as (1) histological confirmation of CRC, (2) clinical presentation consistent with CRC without histological confirmation if the patient was too unwell for biopsy/surgery, and (3) death directly attributable to colorectal carcinoma (CRC) with/without post-mortem confirmation. Negative end-points were defined as patients with no clinical, radiological or post-mortem findings of CRC. Patients were followed for 1 year or until one of the above end-points were met.
RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were included (mean age 81; range 62-93). One-year follow-up was completed in 94.4% (n=68). Mortality from all causes was 33% (n=24). Five histologically proven tumours were diagnosed with CT and there were two probable false-negatives. Results were analysed twice: assuming all CT lesions test positive and considering "possible" lesions test negative [brackets] (95% confidence intervals): sensitivity 0.88 (0.47-1.0) [0.75 (0.35-0.97)], specificity 0.47 (0.34-0.6) [0.87 (0.75-0.94)], positive predictive value 0.18 [0.43], negative predictive value 0.97 [0.96], positive likelihood ratio result 1.6 [5.63], negative likelihood ratio result 0.27 [0.29], kappa 0.31 [0.43]. Tumour prevalence was 12%. A graph of conditional probabilities was generated and analysed. A variety of unsuspected pathology was also found in this series of patients.
CONCLUSIONS: MPCT should be double-reported, at least initially. "Possible" lesions should be ignored. Analysis of the graph of conditional probability applied to a group of frail, elderly patients with a high mortality from all causes (33% in our study) suggests: (1) if MPCT suggests definite or probable carcinoma, regardless of the pre-test probability, the post-test probability is high enough to warrant further action, (2) frail, elderly patients with a low pre-test probability for CRC and a negative MPCT should not have further investigation, (3) frail, elderly patients with a higher pre-test probability of CRC (such as those presenting with rectal bleeding) and a negative MPCT should have either double contrast barium enema (DCBE) or colonoscopy as further investigations or be followed clinically for 3-6 months. MPCT was acceptable to patients and clinicians and may reveal significant extra-colonic pathology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14697374     DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2003.08.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Radiol        ISSN: 0009-9260            Impact factor:   2.350


  8 in total

1.  National CT colonography trial (ACRIN 6664): comparison of three full-laxative bowel preparations in more than 2500 average-risk patients.

Authors:  Amy K Hara; Mark D Kuo; Meridith Blevins; Mei-Hsiu Chen; Judy Yee; Abraham Dachman; Christine O Menias; Betina Siewert; Jugesh I Cheema; Richard G Obregon; Jeff L Fidler; Peter Zimmerman; Karen M Horton; Kevin Coakley; Revathy B Iyer; Robert A Halvorsen; Giovanna Casola; C Daniel Johnson
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Radiological error: analysis, standard setting, targeted instruction and teamworking.

Authors:  Richard FitzGerald
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-02-23       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  Colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Anne B Ballinger; Clive Anggiansah
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-10-06

4.  Gas insufflation of minimal preparation CT of the colon reduces false-positives.

Authors:  A Slater; M North; M Hart; C Ferrett
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-01-11       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  A prospective study assessing the efficacy of abdominal computed tomography scan without bowel preparation in diagnosing intestinal wall and luminal lesions in patients presenting to the emergency room with abdominal complaints.

Authors:  Michal Mizrahi; Yoav Mintz; Avraham Rivkind; David Kisselgoff; Eugene Libson; Mayer Brezis; Eran Goldin; Oren Shibolet
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-04-07       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Reduction of perception error by double reporting of minimal preparation CT colon.

Authors:  R Murphy; A Slater; R Uberoi; H Bungay; C Ferrett
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2009-08-03       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Colorectal cancer is reliably excluded in the frail and elderly population by minimal preparation CT.

Authors:  J H Saunders; D Miskovic; C Bowman; P Panto; A Menon
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 3.781

8.  Accuracy of Combined Computed Tomography Colonography and Dual Energy Iiodine Map Imaging for Detecting Colorectal masses using High-pitch Dual-source CT.

Authors:  Kai Sun; Ruijuan Han; Yang Han; Xuesen Shi; Jiang Hu; Bin Lu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-02-28       Impact factor: 4.379

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.